i UNITED STATES – MEXICO BILATERAL RELATIONS UNDER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP BY LAWRENCIA NAA RIZA SACKEY (10455958) THIS DISSERTATION IS SUBMITED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LEGON DECEMBER 2021 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iii DEDICATION I humbly dedicate this work to God Almighty for blessing me with the opportunity and the grace to embark on this academic journey. I also dedicate it to my parents Mr. and Mrs. Sackey and my siblings Caleb, Madlyn, Irene and Kelvin for their continuous support. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincerest gratitude goes to the Almighty God for the strength, guidance and protection throughout my studies. It is his Grace that has brought me this far. I am very grateful for my supervisor, Dr. Boni Yao Gebe for this advice, supervision, critique and guidance and corrections. This study would not have been possible without his meticulous supervision. I would also like to acknowledge all my lecturers in Legon Centre for International Affairs and Diplomacy for the guidance and teachings throughout my study. I am highly indebted to my parents and family; Mr. Emmanuel Annan Sackey, Mrs. Alice Sackey, Caleb, Irene, Madlyn and Kelvin for their support, effort and interest in my studies. To my mum especially, thank you for your sacrifices and prayers. This would not have been possible without you. Furthermore, I will like to acknowledge my friends and colleagues especially Emmanuel, Sakina, Debrah and Miriam. I deeply appreciate your encouragement and constant support. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh v LIST OF ACRONYMS DACA - Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals DREAM - Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act NAFTA - North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement MPP - Migration Protection Protocol University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents DECLARATION ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. DEDICATION ..................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ iv LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background to the Research Problem .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Research Questions .................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................. 9 1.5 Scope of the Study .................................................................................................................... 9 1.6 Rationale of the Study ........................................................................................................... 10 1.7 Hypothesis .............................................................................................................................. 11 Justification for Hypothesis .......................................................................................................... 11 1.8 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................... 12 1.8.1 National Interest ................................................................................................................... 12 1.8.2 Theory of Nationalism .......................................................................................................... 13 1.9 Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 15 1.9.1 Mexico and the United States: Odd Bedfellows ........................................................... 16 1.9.2 Impact of Trump’s threats on Mexico’s Economy ...................................................... 16 1.9.3 Trump and the Border .................................................................................................. 17 1.9.4 U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation ............................................................................... 18 1.9.5 Future of U.S.-Mexico Relations .......................................................................................... 20 1.10 Sources of Data ....................................................................................................................... 22 1.11 Research Methodology .......................................................................................................... 23 1.12 Organization of Chapters ...................................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................... 27 STATUS OF U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS BEFORE TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND THE DOMESTIC CHANGES U.S. AND MEXICO HAVE FACED IN THE LAST TWO DECADES ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 27 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vii 2.2 Status of U.S.-Mexico Relations Before Trump Presidency ..................................................... 27 2.2.1 U.S.-Mexico Relations under President Bill Clinton .......................................................... 28 2.2.1.1 Trade ............................................................................................................................... 29 2.2.1.2 Mexican Economy .......................................................................................................... 30 2.2.1.3 Drugs and Immigration ................................................................................................. 33 2.2.2 U.S.-Mexico Relation under President George H.W. Bush Jnr. ....................................... 35 ,2.2.2.1 Immigration and Border Security ............................................................................... 35 2.2.2.2 Trade ............................................................................................................................... 37 2.2.2.3 Drug Trafficking ............................................................................................................ 38 2.2.3 U.S.-Mexico Relation under President Barack Obama ..................................................... 39 2.2.3.1 Trade ............................................................................................................................... 39 2.2.3.2 Drug Trafficking ............................................................................................................ 39 2.2.3.3 Immigration and Border Security ................................................................................ 40 2.3 Domestic Changes Mexico and the United States Have Faced in the Last two Decades ........ 41 2.3.1 Domestic Changes: What Next? .......................................................................................... 42 2.3.2 Structural Characteristics of the U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Relations ................................... 45 CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................................... 52 IMPLICATIONS OF DOMESTIC CHANGES ON U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS DURING TRUMP PRESIDENCY, AND ASSESSMENT OF U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS 100 DAYS POST-TRUMP PRESIDENCY ........................................................................................................ 52 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 52 3.2 Donald J. Trump: A Brief Personality Profile .......................................................................... 52 3.3 Brief Historical Background of 2016 Presidential Campaign .................................................. 54 3.4 Implications of Domestic Changes on U.S.-Mexico Relations During Trump Presidency .... 57 3.5 Donald J. Trump: Some Accomplishments of the One-Term President ................................. 63 3.6 Status of U.S.-Mexico Relations 100 days post-Trump Administration .................................. 64 CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................. 77 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 77 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 77 4.2. Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................. 77 4.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 87 4.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 90 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh viii ABSTRACT United States-Mexico bilateral relations can best be described as a ‘bromance’ – a love-hate relationship; their ‘rich’ history bears that out. Donald J. Trump during the early days of his presidency was a major threat to U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations. The threat posed by President Trump to U.S.-Mexico relations occurred along three main dimensions – his utterances/ rhetoric, foreign policy agenda, and personality. The economic benefit of US-Mexico relations appeared to be one-sided in favour of Mexico, prior to Trump becoming president, as reflected by the 100-billion-dollar trade deficit with Mexico. To top it all up, Mexico through its immigration policies was making the United States also feel unsafe at its southern border, by allowing migrant caravan to pour into the United States’ southern border. These coupled with other factors prompted Trump’s strong stance against Mexico. The study, thus, sought to examine U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations under President Donald Trump. The results of the study showed that prior to Trump becoming President, the status of U.S.-Mexico relations remained relatively stable. In the last two decades, domestic changes in the United States included but not limited to a (1) shift in the U.S.’ traditional view of immigration as an economic and cultural issue to now viewing illegal border crossings as a national security threat especially fueled by the crisis of 9/11. Although doom and gloom, triggered by domestic changes in both countries, were predicted for U.S.-Mexico relations under President Donald Trump; the bilateral relations between both countries seemed to have rather strengthened to the amazement of onlookers. 100 days post-Trump presidency was a total mess on the immigration and narcotics front, with the drug cartels being emboldened and making more money than they have ever made in a long while. There is, therefore, the need to re-evaluate policies to determine effective policies, so that ineffective ones can be discontinued, while maintaining effective ones regardless of which political party brought into force. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Research Problem United States-Mexico bilateral relations can best be described as a ‘bromance’ – a love-hate relationship; their ‘rich’ history bears that out. From the onset, the contentious issue of recognizing the Independence of Mexico split American leadership into two major factions – John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.1 Finally, in 1822, the United States acknowledged2 the Independence of Mexico. Prior to 1822, the United States hesitated to give Mexico a formal recognition primarily because of the desire of the United States presidents to ‘sit on the fence’ during the struggle between Spanish troops and freedom fighters in Mexico – Mexico was a vassal territory or colony of Spain at the time. Mexico’s struggle for Independence from Spain was given a major boost when France under the leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Spain in 1808. However, the territorial ambitions of the United States resulted in a war between Mexico and the U.S. The war lasted from 1846 to 1848. In 1836 colonists living in the Texas area seceded from Mexico to become an independent state. A year later the U.S. acknowledged the new Republic. Eight years after the United States’ recognition of the Republic of Texas, Texas became a U.S. state3. Mexico was not happy.4 War was in the offing. Instability in the body politic of Mexico ensued and generated strains in U.S. – Mexico relations. It was on March 4, 1845, that United States President James K. Polk indicated his endorsement of the entry of the Republic of Texas into the Union in his address at his inauguration. Mexico University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2 responded by severing diplomatic ties with the U.S.5 In December 1845 Texas was allowed to join the Union as the 28th U.S. state. But in April of the next year, the Mexican military launched an attack on what they saw to be incursive U.S. forces that had taken over land under dispute between the two countries. The following month, the United States through its Congress made a declaration of war against Mexico. In 1848 the war was ended6 and diplomatic ties resumed.7 A decade later, in 1858, the US – Mexico relations was again to be disrupted and normalized once again a year later. The 1858 US-Mexico bilateral relations disruptions were a consequence of the Mexican Government’s mistreatment of U.S. citizens and their assets. At the turn of the 20th century, the ‘bromance’ between these two countries would emerge again, as if the earlier disruptions in their relationship was not enough. After the Tampico incident of 1914, the United States President Woodrow Wilson decreed that Veracruz be bombarded and occupied by the United States marines. The Tampico incident involved the arrest of 2 officers in the U.S. navy and 7 crew members who were paraded through the streets of Mexico. Mexico severed diplomatic ties to protest the occupation of Veracruz. On March 3, 1917, diplomatic ties were once again reset. From the above brief historical overview, relations between the United States and Mexico have not always been cordial but rather contentious. Notwithstanding, the decades in the latter part of the 20th century witnessed deep changes in U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations.8 This was in sharp contrast to what hitherto had prevailed. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 was a catalyst that served to bring the two nations closer together to work in a more cooperative fashion, even as their national interests began to align more and more. During the Cold War era, that was not the case. The signing of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993 was the high point of this new era of US- University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3 Mexico bilateral relations. The North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement was considered mutually beneficial,9 but was that truly the case? Before long, the two countries had retraced to their past – contentions about traditional issues like drugs, immigration and trade began to reemerge. For example, in trade, the Mexican Peso was devaluated to disadvantage the United States in trade in December 1994.10 That newfound cooperation led to the United States and Mexico becoming more interdependent. The passing of the NAFTA deal served to distort the distinction between foreign and domestic issues, which had for some time started to wane. Consequently, after NAFTA, delinking the different bilateral issues became problematic. This development was re-echoed by political scientists Jeff D. Colgan and Robert Keohane in their article, ‘The Liberal Order is Rigged’, “Today’s crucial foreign policy challenges arise less from problems between countries than from domestic politics within them,” 11 suggesting that domestic issues more often than not are the main source of foreign policy challenges in US-Mexico relations. And domestic problems within both countries were rife. Colgan & Keohane12 argue that the breakdown in social contract contributed to the election of Donald J. Trump: "The Brexit and Trump phenomena reflect a breakdown in the social contract at the core of liberal democracy. The bill for that broken social contract came due in 2016." It is essential to note that the domestic issues prevailing in the U.S. during the presidential candidature of Donald J. Trump and the early days of his presidency may have contributed in large part to fueling his rise to the presidency, not to mention putting Mexico in the ‘cross-hairs’ of his presidency. Overdose deaths from opioids produced in the lab shot up by 525% from 2013 to 2016. In 2017, about 72,000 individuals died from an overdose of drugs such as illegal drugs and prescription opioids, surpassing all historical highs.13 The deaths due to overdose in 2017 were thrice that of what happened in 2002; this was a major problem, even a crisis.14,15,16 The trajectory on University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4 which the overdose deaths were was concerning. Synthetic opioids or heroin accounted for more than 30,000 of the 72,000 overdose deaths reported for 2017. And which country happens to be the principal producer of heroin in the Americas and the chief supplier of the drug to the U.S.? The answer: Mexico.17 And so, in vintage Trump fashion, the rhetoric began. Trump is a practical person. When he feels he has identified a problem, he begins to talk about it (often not in complimentary terms) until it has gathered enough public attention and awareness for phase two to begin, which entails taking concrete corrective actions. He applied the same modus operandi with China. From 1974 to 2015, the real median household income for U.S. citizens who had no high school diplomas declined by about 20%, while those in possession of high school diplomas but no college education had their income falling by 24%.18 In the U.S., life expectancy for 2015 and 2016 declined and that was a result of the high mortality rate from unintentional opioid overdoses,19 not to mention the spread of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. The potency of fentanyl is unbelievable – only two milligrams of fentanyl is enough to trigger a lethal overdose. That is because fentanyl’s potency is 100 times that of morphine and 50 times that of heroin and this potency was not without its effect on the American population. Out of the 64,000 overdose mortalities in the United States in 2016 - the year Trump rose to political power and becoming the leader of the free world – 19,000 of those deaths were attributable to fentanyl, the principal U.S. supplier of which remains Mexico. Mexico was, thus, seen as the primary source of the U.S. drug problem and so the soon-to-be 45th U.S. President would launch incessant attacks on Mexico, thereby threatening the relatively solid, hard-fought U.S.-Mexico relations. The next section presents the statement of the research problem. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5 1.2 Problem Statement The presidency of Donald J. Trump was a major threat to U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations. The threat posed by President Trump to U.S.-Mexico relations occurred along three main dimensions – his utterances/ rhetoric, foreign policy agenda, and personality. Trump’s Utterances/ Rhetoric “I have a lawsuit in Mexico’s corrupt court system that I won but so far can’t collect. Don’t do business with Mexico!” – Donald J. Trump’s Tweet On Feb 24th, 2015 (Source: thetrumparchive.com) “The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!” – Donald J. Trump’s Tweet On May 25th, 2016 (Source: thetrumparchive.com) “The "Rust Belt20" was created by politicians like the Clintons who allowed our jobs to be stolen from us by other countries like Mexico. END!” – Donald J. Trump’s Tweet On July 30th, 2016 (Source: thetrumparchive.com) The tweets above are but only three examples of the 338 archived tweets having Mexico as a subject matter. The first tweet had to do with the Trump Organization business dealings. The tweet was posted in 2015, a year before the U.S. November Elections. It suggests that Mexico’s court system was unjust and full of corruption and advises businesses not to ‘open shop’ in Mexico. Such a statement threatens Mexico economically, as it is heavily reliant on the United States for capital inflows as well as the export of its goods. In the second tweet, Trump suggests the protesters outside his rally in New Mexico were from the nation of Mexico because they were flying the Mexican flag and goes further to equate those protesters to criminals and by extension intimating that Mexico was a nation of criminals. These are harsh utterances. In the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6 third tweet, Mexico is attacked for ‘stealing’ U.S. jobs, implying that Mexico as a nation was a ‘thief’. In diplomacy, such statements are reprehensible and do not augur well for bilateral relations. But then, Donald Trump is not a diplomat, and neither is he a politician. And it was those traits and his bluntness or forwardness that perhaps endeared him to the masses in the United States who have long suffered from broken promises from the Washington elites. Colgan & Keohane21 in their work, “The Liberal Order is Rigged” said it best: The bill for that broken social contract came due in 2016. No one expected Trump to win the U.S. Presidency, and yet he did. Trump’s Foreign Policy Agenda Trump’s foreign policy agenda can be summed up in two words, “America First!”. The idea(s) contained in these two words formed the thrust of his entire presidential campaign, which essentially was “Make America Great Again!”, MAGA for short. Such was the energy his base derived from these two slogans. In as much as these slogans energized Trump’s base, it was a potential source of worry for Mexico as far as the US-Mexico bilateral relations were concerned. Both “America First” and “Make America Great Again” are U.S-centric and inward-looking. To the people of Mexico, these slogans seemed like a “double-edged sword” because their implementation could negatively affect Mexico’s trade with the U.S. Trump’s Personality Trump is a go-getter. Moreover, the United States under President Donald Trump felt Mexico was not a significant contributor to the U.S-Mexico bilateral relations. “People have been saying for years that we should talk to Mexico. The problem is that Mexico is an “abuser” of the United States, taking but never giving. It has been this way for decades. Either they stop the invasion of our Country by Drug Dealers, Cartels, Human Traffickers.” University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 7 – Donald J. Trump’s Tweet On June 2nd, 2020 (Source: thetrumparchive.com) Consequently, any sense of obligation to the bilateral relations seemed to be “up in the air”. “On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% tariff on all goods coming into our country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP. The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied.” – Donald J. Trump’s Tweet On May 30th, 2020 (Source: thetrumparchive.com) Ultimately, the end goal of all bilateral relations is the economic benefit and national security the two countries stand to gain. An instance of economic benefit is when bilateral relations lead to businesses moving in and creating jobs for citizens of both countries. However, in the case of US-Mexico relations, it appears the economic benefit was one-sided: “…We have a 100 Billion Dollar Trade Deficit with Mexico. It’s time!” – Donald J. Trump’s Tweet On May 31st, 2020 (Source: thetrumparchive.com) Only one country seemed to have gained from the relationship and that was Mexico, as reflected in the huge trade deficit between the two countries. And that was a situation President Trump was not too happy about. To top it all up, Mexico through its immigration policies was making the United States also feel unsafe at its southern border: “90% of the drugs coming into the United States come through Mexico &, our Southern Border. 80,000 people died last year; 1,000,000 people ruined. This has gone on for many years &, nothing has been done about it….” – Donald J. Trump’s Tweet On May 31st, 2020 (Source: thetrumparchive.com) This was a ‘slap in the face’ that was not to go unanswered. National security is the other ultimate end goal of bilateral relations, and it appears the United States is not getting it from its diplomatic relations with Mexico, thereby threatening the continued viability of U.S-Mexico University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 relations. National security includes but not limited to the defence against and elimination of perceived and or potential threats from other nation-states especially neighboring nations to a country’s national security. In that sense, the United States’ national security especially at the southern border has been infringed upon, with Mexico allowing waves upon waves of migrant caravan to pour into its neighbor’s southern border: “...Mexico’s attitude is that people from other countries, including Mexico, should have the right to flow into the U.S. &, that U.S. taxpayers should be responsible for the tremendous costs associated w/ this illegal migration. Mexico is wrong and I will soon be giving a response!” – Donald J. Trump’s Tweet On May 21st, 2020 (Source: thetrumparchive.com) This action or inaction by Mexico does not appear to suggest Mexico care about the welfare of its diplomatic partner and for that matter US-Mexico relations. To the U.S., the relationship with Mexico is perhaps more of ensuring security at its ‘backyard’ (i.e., southern border) while to Mexico is more possibly about achieving economic gain. “Working hard in New Mexico. I built the Wall (security) …” – Donald J. Trump’s Tweet On September 25th, 2020 (Source: thetrumparchive.com) To the United States under Donald Trump, security was paramount, and it appeared not to be getting it from its dealings with Mexico and so the United States under President Trump resorted to the building of a wall to provide security across its southern border – a move that may have undermined the U.S-Mexico bilateral relations. The research questions and research questions are put forward in the next two sections. 1.3 Research Questions i. What was the status of the United States-Mexico bilateral relations before the presidency of Donald J. Trump? University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 9 ii. What are the domestic changes Mexico and the United States have faced in the last two decades? iii. What are the implications of the domestic changes on U.S.-Mexico relations during Trump’s presidency, with particular emphasis on immigration, trade (NAFTA) and drugs? iv. What is the status of US-Mexico relations 100 days post-Trump presidency? 1.4 Research Objectives The specific objectives of the study were to: i. Assess the status of the United States-Mexico bilateral relations before the presidency of Donald J. Trump. ii. Investigate the domestic changes Mexico and the United States have faced in the last two decades. iii. Explore the implications of the domestic changes on U.S-Mexico relations during Trump’s presidency, with particular emphasis on immigration, trade (NAFTA) and drugs. iv. Assess the status of U.S.-Mexico relations 100 days post-Trump administration. 1.5 Scope of the Study The scope of the study is limited to U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations. The period under consideration is primarily from 2016 to 2020, during President Donald J. Trump’s first term in office. However, the study does take the liberty of making some references to years prior to the period under investigations during the tackling of some objectives to provide context for the study’s examination of the influence of President Donald J. Trump on U.S.-Mexico relations, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 10 for good or for worse, as well as the first 100 days of President Joe Biden’s presidency as it relates to U.S-Mexico relations in a post-Trump era. 1.6 Rationale of the Study The United States of America is the world’s superpower. What happens in America affects the world; and what happens between America and other nations, especially neighboring nations like Mexico has implications for its stability and ability to function on the world stage. America and the traditional ideals they stand for are a beacon of hope for many across the globe. The ties between Mexico and the United States go far beyond the official and diplomatic levels, to a greater degree than United States relations with any other nation.22 Restrepo and others23 described U.S.-Mexico relations as the “the most consequential U.S. bilateral relationship in the world”. Upwards of 35 million individuals in the U.S. are either born in Mexico or have Mexican lineage. Correspondingly, there are more than 1 million United States citizens residing in Mexico, and possibly a huge number of people with dual nationalities.24 Moreover, Mexico is the destination of choice for many vacationing U.S citizens and others engaged in foreign travel. Similarly, the United States is the preferred destination of choice for many Mexicans travelling overseas. Numerous firms in the United States and about 5 million workers in the United States have jobs that rely on trade with Mexico, and with around 80 % of Mexico’s exports drawing on demand in the United States, there are a massive number of Mexican citizens who depend on U.S-Mexico bilateral trade and joint manufacturing to make a living. There is, thus, strong interdependence between the two countries. Consequently, there is the need to understand how such a controversial political figure head like Donald J. Trump affected the ‘delicate dance’ between these two neighboring countries whose history can only be described as contentious. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 11 1.7 Hypothesis Donald Trump’s presidency negatively affected relations between the United States and Mexico. Justification for Hypothesis The justification for settling on this hypothesis lay in the highly negative media coverage all things Trump seemed to have attracted during his time in office. In the United States of America, the Free Press is a vital institution commonly regarded as a pillar of democracy, with one of its roles being to offer checks and balances on the government in power through fair, accurate, and balanced reporting. However, following Donald Trump's election to the US presidency, the media's barrage of attacks on his person has been relentless, even though the economy is thriving, and the country's national security is improving at home and abroad. According to a survey performed by the Media Research Center, nearly two-thirds of evening news reporting of the Presidency of Donald trump by ABC, CBS, and NBC (three major broadcast networks) has focused on just five major issues over the last four months: North Korea diplomacy; the Russia investigation; the Kavanaugh nomination; immigration policy, and US-Russia relations. The broadcasters' covering of all of these themes has been overwhelmingly negative, while positive aspects of the Trump administration, such as the rising economy, have received less attention (less than 1% of total coverage for the four-month period).25 In summary, the survey discovered that television news coverage of President Trump is 92 percent negative, plus or minus a percentage point or two, with less than 1% covering the economy or other bright aspects.26 (Harper, 2018). These negative news coverages, coupled with Trump’s earlier utterances concerning Mexico is expected to adversely affect bilateral relations. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 12 1.8 Conceptual Framework For this research study, two conceptual frameworks were employed: National Interest and Theory of Nationalism. 1.8.1 National Interest National Interest was adopted as the conceptual framework for this study. Several researchers have endeavored to describe the concept of national interest. Per William Bloom’s explanation, “the national interest is that which can be perceived as being part of national identity and thus, is capable of triggering national mass mobilization to defend or enhance it”.27 Elsewhere, Daniel Papp defines national interest as “a constant set of national objectives than a changing approximation of what the leaders of a particular or other significant individuals or groups within a country view as important”.28 National interest is a concept that plays a crucial role in international relations since it is used to clarify and concisely examine foreign policy of states. Usually, when policy makers arrive at decisions that affects or involve other states, such as making an alliance, becoming part of a regional grouping, or imposing economic sanctions on other countries, they argue their decision to be in service of the national interest of their own countries. Frankel contends that ‘national interest’ is an amorphous concept as it is imprecise. Scholars are yet to reach a consensus as to its definitive definition since the various meanings of the concept cannot easily be synchronized.29 Bilateral relations between two countries is a product of foreign policy. Frankel further contends that if foreign policy can be defined as “a formulation of desired outcomes intended to be consequent upon decisions adopted or made by those who have authority or ability to commit machinery of the state to that end, then national interest describes the desired outcome.”30 National interest is a concept that statesmen associate great import to in the design of foreign policy. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 13 In view of the above, one cannot dismiss Palmerton’s pronouncement stating that “we (the US) have no eternal allies and we have no eternal enemies. Our interests are eternal and those it is our duty to follow”.31 Hans Morgenthau, an expert in international relations, observed that a country’s bilateral relations should be driven by her national interest rather than utopian and dangerous moralistic, legalistic and ideological reasons.32 Morgenthau relates national interest in the arena of power in international relations and opines that, a country’s national interest can be reduced to the protection of a country’s territorial integrity as well as defending her political and cultural identity from incursion by other nation-states. The concept of the national interest has come under heavy criticisms because of its ambiguous nature and the notion that it is bent by the ruling elites to serve their parochial interests. Rosenau posits that the concept of national interest is values driven, and, thus, is not easy to employ as a potent tool of rigorous analysis. Statesmen discuss their goals in terms of national interest and are inclined to claim that their goals are the national interest.33 The concept of national interest is relevant for the study because, it seeks to explain the various motives in relation to how states behave within the international system. A country’s foreign policy thrives on a set of principles and policy objectives be it that they are joining a regional grouping, entering into alliances or enforcing economic sanctions on other states, the main focus is under the parasol of the state’s national interest.34 1.8.2 Theory of Nationalism This research is also guided by the theory of Nationalism. Nationalism is “an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity for a population which some of its members deem to constitute an actual or potential nation”.35 It is an idea that University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 14 promotes interests of citizens in a nation and articulates that the loyalty and devotion of individuals in a nation surpasses group interests. It involves building and maintaining national identity free from interference of other states and encouraging national achievements like patriotism. There has been countless number of debates concerning the nature of nationalism. It aims at maintaining sovereignty and national identity. Whiles some sources say nationalism began in the 18th century with the French Revolution, scholars like Hans Kohn wrote in 1944 that nationalism goes as far back as the 17th century. Nationalism was however, firmly grasped in the 19th century.36 Nationalism has received many criticisms. In the liberal tradition, it is viewed as dangerous and a cause for conflict between nation-states. In 1862, Lord Acton, a historian and politician, described nationalism as “insanity”. He argued that nationalism subdues minorities and places country above moral principles. He also stated that it can create a dangerous individual attachment to the state. Scholars like Albert Einstein has also criticized the theory of nationalism, stating that “nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind”. British pacifist and socialist, Bertrand Russell criticized nationalism. He argues that nationalism blinds the individual’s ability to judge foreign policies of his/her nation. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and his election bordered on nationalism. By 2017, Republicans were largely united around nationalistic issues such as support for building a wall on the southern border, respecting the flag, and opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.37 The United States has always had a resonant of nationalism. The concept of Trumpism, a political movement associated with the presidency of Donald Trump, his political base, and his style of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 15 governance, which was made popular during the United States 2016 presidential elections, involves a mixture of nationalism. Trumpism rest on three pillars, nationalism, religion, and race.38 Nationalism being its major pillar as Trump garnered many votes from his policy to put America first. Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election saw a revival in nationalism in Mexico. As Trump called for “America First”, Peña Nieto also called for “Hecho en Mexico”, meaning made in Mexico, borrowing ideas from Trump, who promised Americans he would restore jobs they have lost to Mexicans back to them. This nationalist policy pursued by the Mexican president was because of Trump’s comments about Mexicans and his promise to build a border wall. Mexicans embarked on a journey to boycott U.S products and companies such as Walmart, Starbucks, and others. In February of 2017, thousands came together in Mexico City to march and protest Trump and his policies towards Mexico. Both countries uncovered nationalistic sentiments which affected their relations. The theory of nationalism best explains the approach taken by both countries in their bilateral relations. 1.9 Literature Review This section reviews some literature relevant to the study. In all, 24 journals articles, documents and reports were reviewed:39-62 Some examples of the literature reviewed were: U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications by Villarreal; U.S.-Mexico security cooperation 2018-2024 by Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies; The Future of U.S.-Mexico Relations: A Tale of Two Crises by Velasco; Trump’s Assault on the Global Trading System by Bown and Irwin; Immigrants in the United States by American Immigration Council; NAFTA´s impact on US-Mexican border security: Drug, trade and migration by Fernández. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 1.9.1 Mexico and the United States: Odd Bedfellows The United States has a strategic partnership with Mexico. It is the United States' second- largest export market. As a result of this, the United States is Mexico's most important trading partner.39 The two nations have a complicated interdependence in both the security and economic arenas.40 Notwithstanding the fact that the United States and Mexico share a huge socioeconomic affinity, the two countries' connections have deteriorated over the last several decades. The two nations' bilateral ties have been strained by unlawful migration.41 After Donald Trump threatened Mexico during his presidential campaign in 2016, the situation became critical. Trump was concerned about the surge in Illegal migration, denouncing Mexico and the Mexican government, and in the event of his election as president, he was planning to terminate DACA, build a border wall, and leave NAFTA.42 NAFTA, Trump said, is the worst trade agreement the US has ever ratified. After becoming the U.S. president, Trump continued to have such a view on NAFTA.43 1.9.2 Impact of Trump’s threats on Mexico’s Economy In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential elections, Mexico's national currency, the Peso, was devalued by 13% 44as a direct consequence of President Trump's threats.45 The Trump Administration ended DACA in 2017 as promised, and for Mexicans who had acquired DACA's amnesty before its expiration, new requirements were established.46 President Trump resurrected the subject of immigration in May 2018 by threatening a new 25% tax on Mexican imports unless the country stopped the influx of migrants.47 Only 44.7 million immigrants (foreign-born persons) were accounted in the United States in 2018, with 25% of them coming from Mexico, according to the American Immigration Council.48 During a meeting with Mexican and Canadian officials on December 1, 2018, President Trump told them of his plan to remove the United States from NAFTA in six months.49 His University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 17 administration did start fresh discussions later on though, and came up with the new agreement, USMCA, which is a modernized version of NAFTA.50 1.9.3 Trump and the Border When Donald Trump entered office, he proceeded to erect physical barriers along the border between the United States and Mexico, which had already been in place for 650 miles.51 The border has been fortified by Trump's erection of massive iron structures and the extension of physical barriers. Besides stopping the influx of migrants, tighter border controls between the United States and Mexico were implemented to combat another issue: the influx of opioid and illicit drugs from Mexico into the United States, which results in the death of thousands of Americans each year.52 For the purpose of avoiding tariffs and enhancing cooperation on issues such as tighter border enforcement between Mexico and Guatemala (from which the majority of migrants enter the United States), combating smuggling and criminal activity (which facilitates illegal migration), asylum, temporary visas, and work permits in Mexico, the Mexican government reached an agreement with the United States government on June 7, 2019.53 The migration problem, on the whole, remains unsolved despite several agreements and close coordination between the parties.54 The Trump administration's attempt to tighten border controls proved fruitless, since there was no decrease in the number of people crossing the border illegally. Unauthorized migration, on the other hand, expanded in scope. The issue of trade deficits persisted and continue to do so in the economic realm, much like the issue of migration. The trade imbalance between the United States and Mexico and Canada rose even more in 2019 after the entry into force of the USMCA. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 18 1.9.4 U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation U.S.-Mexican relations are based on a shared commitment to public safety, order, and prosperity. In terms of security, the 1,988-mile border between the two nations is crucial since it is the busiest in the world.55 Border enforcement efforts have run into difficulties in recent months because of the rising number of migrants and the humanitarian situation on the US-Mexico border. Future migrants, particularly children, are in danger because of the situations they may face in the near future. More unlawful border crossings were blocked in May 2019 than in May 2018, the highest rate since 2006 (133,000), compared to May 2018, the month before the border wall was built, according to U.S. Border Patrol data. 688,000 people were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border in the first nine months of 2019 alone.56 Migrants try to cross the border in more perilous and distant regions once border barriers are erected, and this results in deaths.57 Overdose deaths attributed to accidental opioid and illegal drug ingestions have surged in the United States, decreasing life expectancy. In 2017, about 72,000 individuals died from a drug overdose, a statistic that is three times more than the 2002 death toll from overdose. Overdose fatalities from synthetic opioids rose by 525 percent between 2013 and 2016. But then why do people think of Mexico when they hear these numbers? – Despite the fact that Asia is a major exporter of illicit drugs (such as synthetic opioids, which are largely produced in China and shipped directly to the United States via mail and courier services or cargo arriving at U.S. ports), Mexico is the primary producer of heroin in North and South America, accounting for 90% of all illicit poppy cultivations worldwide. Mexico is the primary source of opioids for the vast majority of opioid users in the area.58 Violence linked to organized crime, as well as narcotics trafficking, is an issue in Mexico and in the US. Drug trafficking routes and markets are being sought by organized crime organizations, who are also expanding their criminal operations to include oil theft, illegal immigration, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 19 abduction, and human trafficking. Organized crime in Mexico has claimed the lives of 109,000 individuals since 2006, while another 30,000 have gone missing as a result of the violence. Since Felipe Calderón's presidency, organized crime in Mexico has been at its highest level since 2017.59 Movement from Mexico to the United States has been linked to the development of Tuberculosis in the United States, and the return migration from the United States to Mexico has been linked to the spread of HIV/AIDS. Even if this is the case, some academics believe that it is a political strategy to oppose particular socioeconomic groups.60 Mexican American security cooperation was developed during bilateral meetings on migration and security concerns between the two nations in the early 1980s. In 1981, the Binational Commission was established, followed by the Border Governors Conference and the Interparliamentary Group meetings, which were established in the following years. Prior to the finalization of NAFTA, Mexico inked a number of environmental and agricultural agreements with the United States. These accords were essential in developing North American cooperation. Central American peace and security projects have also been undertaken by Mexico and the United States in tandem. The 1992 El Salvador Peace Accords at Chapultepec (Mexico City, Mexico), attended by an official U.S. delegation as a honored witness, is a clear example of this. A total of five cooperations were established between the United States and Mexico to enhance counterterrorism cooperation and security of the Mexican-U.S. border following the 9/11 terrorist attack: the High-Level Contact Group for Drug Control in 1996, Security Partnership of North America (SPP), Mérida Initiative in 2006, and Operation Centinela in 2003, which were established after the 9/11 terrorist attack to enhance counterterrorism cooperation and security of the border.61 (Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 2018). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 20 1.9.5 Future of U.S.-Mexico Relations Velasco62 studied the future of U.S-Mexico relations. In Velasco’s paper, it was argued that ever since Donald J. Trump began his campaign to the White House, “U.S.-Mexico relations have been in crisis” (p. 3). But is that really the case? The author further cited how Trump was heavy in his criticism of Mexico and its citizens, and how he threatened to expatriate millions of undocumented Mexicans by putting a stop to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative first started by Barack Hussein Obama. Not only that, Velasco also contended that the determination of Trump to build a wall along the southern border and the expressed intent to leave or modify the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have muddied to some extent the U.S.-Mexico relationship.63 The aggressiveness behind virtually all communications and posts that has to do with Mexico coupled with the Mexican president’s inability to handle Trump’s “spanner in the works” have all come together to produce uneasy situations between policymakers of both nations. The author additionally claimed that for intellectuals and officials in Mexico, U.S.-Mexico relations were at their lowest point in over 25 years. The author noted as well that it has come to the attention of journalists and political analysts that after years of cordiality between the two countries, the primary concern of Mexico in foreign affairs was to launch a resistance against Trump. However, to the Trump presidency, Mexico was not a pivotal issue but rather one of many. The author, thus, sought to examine whether a considerable change occurred in U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship during the Trump presidency. To achieve the research objectives, the author examined not only prevailing events but also the structural environments that drove the current situation between the United States and Mexico. The author found that domestic politics of both nations, especially the United States, wields a lot of influence on the bilateral relationship and is often the root of present-day University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 21 political tensions. “Only by understanding Mexico and U.S. domestic politics will we be able to comprehend the nature of current events and how these domestic conditions will determine the future of bilateral relations.”64 Mosashvili conducted a study into U.S.-Mexico relations and the role of migration as an impeding factor during the Trump era.65 The study observed that the U.S. had often tried to strengthen its immigration policy as far as Mexico was concerned, even before Trump came on the scene. The increase in border controls in the year 2001, followed by the Bush administration’s decision to put up a fence on the Mexico-U.S. border are clear pieces of evidence that Donald Trump only came to finish what had already started; only that he was more clear-eyed and decisive about it. To wit, President Trump is not the only American president to have pursued a tough stance on issues of U.S.-Mexico border crossings. His go- getting attitude, strongmindedness and focused policy on the Mexican migration problem made his administration more effective. Comparing the results of Trump’s administration with previous administrations, the latter seemed to have engaged in “talk shop”. His effectiveness, paradoxically, greatly altered the U.S.-Mexico relations during his time in office. Renegotiating the NAFTA agreement was a key policy mandate pushed by the Trump campaign. To put it lightly, Mexico was not too happy about the upcoming change especially when NAFTA had served her interests so well, leading to tensions between the two countries. Mosashvili, after studying key provisions of NAFTA and US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) agreement arrived at the conclusion that modifications made in the new USMCA would not yield the desired impact on trade between Mexico, United States and Canada nor will they resolve the U.S. trade deficit – a problem that can only addressed if production in the U.S. goes up.66 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 22 Restrepo, in an article discussing the preservation and the strengthening of U.S.-Mexico relations, argued that the Trump administration should endeavor to cooperate with Mexico knowing full well that the people of the United States and Mexico are inextricably linked.67 The article further accused Trump of using Mexico as a scapegoat for public policy failures on the part of the United States that had disenfranchised many American workers in the era of globalization and automation. Indeed, it is not Mexico’s fault that American workers have been negatively impacted. It is the responsibility of every country to see to it that their citizens are being taken care of and that is something Mexico did but U.S. leaders prior to Trump failed to do. The uproar that was stirred by the America First policy agenda appeared to suggest the political elites, corporations and those who matter in society had gotten used to putting America and the interests of its citizens last – a situation that perhaps personally advantages them. Hence, the uproar. To solve the marginalization of American workers, Restrepo recommends a solution and that is to strengthen ties with Mexico68. But then what use is the deepening of a relationship that leaves the citizens of one country in a bilateral relationship marginalized in the world of work. National interest is key. The foundation of all bilateral relationship should be alignment of national interests. Alignment of national interests breeds cooperation. When a bilateral relationship is not working for one, it is more than likely that one or more national interests of the respective countries is/are out of sync. 1.10 Sources of Data Data from both the primary and secondary sources were used for this study. Primary data was obtained through interviews. The data was obtained from current officials of the Embassy of Mexico and the Embassy of the United States in Ghana to establish the historical and current information University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 23 concerning the nature of US-Mexico relations prior to and during the trump administration. Purposive sampling method was used in sampling specific individuals and the organizations interviewed for the study with structured interview guidelines. Secondary data sources were gathered from internet sources, published and unpublished books, articles and journal articles, newspaper articles, magazine posts, the Trump Doctrine, data from conferences. The Balme and LECIAD libraries were also utilized. 1.11 Research Methodology A qualitative method was used for this research. The decision to use a qualitative approach was to make it possible to conduct an explanatory, interpretative and descriptive study of the research topic. 1.12 Organization of Chapters The research work constituted four chapters and the content of each chapter was structured as follows: Chapter One constituted the Introduction to the Research Work. Chapter Two focused on the status of U.S.-Mexico relations before the Trump presidency and investigate the domestic changes Mexico and the United States have faced in the last two decades. Chapter Three explored the implications of the domestic changes on U.S-Mexico relations during Trump’s presidency, with particular emphasis on immigration, trade (NAFTA) and drugs, and assess the status of U.S.-Mexico relations 100 days post-Trump presidency. Chapter Four highlighted the summary of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 24 Endnote 1 Office of the Historian. (2008). A Guide to the United States’ History of Recognition, Diplomatic, and Consular Relations, by Country, since 1776: Mexico. https://history.state.gov/countries/mexico 2 Diplomatic relations were established on December 12, 1822, when President James Monroe received José Manuel Zozaya as Mexican Minister to the United States. The American Delegation in Mexico was established on June 1, 1825, when Joel Robert Poinsett presented his credentials as Envoy Extraordinary Cand Minister Plenipotentiary to President Guadalupe Victoria. 3 On March 1, 1845, U.S. President John Tyler signed a congressional joint resolution favoring the annexation of Texas. 4 On August 23, 1843, the Mexican foreign minister informed U.S. Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Mexico, Waddy Thompson, that U.S. annexation of Texas would be grounds for war. 5 The Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs informed U.S. Minister to Mexico, Wilson Shannon, on March 28, 1845, that Mexico was severing diplomatic relations with the United States. 6 The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, signed in Mexico City on February 2, 1848, and ratified by the Senate on March 10, 1848, ended the war. 7 Diplomatic relations were reestablished on December 4, 1848, when U.S. President James K. Polk accepted Luis de la Rosa’s credentials as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States. 8 Purcell, S. K. (1997). The Changing Nature of US-Mexican Relations. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 39(1), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/166501 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Colgan, J. D., & Keohane, R. O. (2018, December 8). The Liberal Order Is Rigged. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2017-04-17/liberal-order-rigged 12 Ibid. 13 U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation Taskforce. (2019). U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation 2018-2024 (p. 29). Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. https://www.brookings.edu/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/Whitepaper_Security_Taskforce.pdf 14 BBC. (2018, March 6). Opioid crisis: Overdose rates jump 30% in one year. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43305340. 15 Soelberg, C. D., Brown, R. E., Du Vivier, D., Meyer, J. E., & Ramachandran, B. K. (2017). The US Opioid Crisis: Current Federal and State Legal Issues. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 125(5), 1675–1681. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002403 16 Op. cit. see U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation Taskforce. 17 U. S. Government Accountability Office. (2018, April). Illicit Opioids: While Greater Attention Given to Combating Synthetic Opioids, Agencies Need to Better Assess their Efforts. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-205 18 Op. cit. see Colgan, J. D., & Keohane, R. O. 19 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. (2018). Global overview of drug demand and supply: Latest trends and cross-cutting issues. United Nations. https://www.unodc.org/wdr2018/prelaunch/WDR18_Booklet_2_GLOBAL.pdf 20According to Wikipedia, the Rust Belt is a region of the Northeastern and Midwestern United States that has been experiencing industrial decline starting around 1980. It is made up largely of the Great Lakes Megalopolis, though definitions vary. Rust refers to the deindustrialization, economic decline, population loss, and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once-powerful industrial sector, such as steel production, automobile manufacturing, and coal mining. The Rust Belt runs westward from Central New York through Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, northern Illinois, and eastern Wisconsin. 21 Op. cit. see Colgan, J. D., & Keohane, R. O. 22 Wilson, C. E., Olson, E. L., Salazaar, M. R., Selee, A., & Wood, D. (2013). New Ideas for a New Era: Policy Options for the Next Stage in U.S.-Mexico Relations (p. 61). Woodrow Wilson Centre. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 25 https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/misc/new_ideas_us_mexico_relation s.pdf 23 Restrepo, D., Werz, M., & Martinez, J. (2017). Preserving and Strengthening the U.S.-Mexico Relationship. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2017/01/30/297187/preserving-and- strengthening-the-u-s-mexico-relationship/ 24 Op. cit. see Wilson, C. E., Olson, E. L., Salazaar, M. R., Selee, A., & Wood, D. 25 Harper, J. (2018). Still hostile: News coverage of President Trump is 92 percent negative, study finds. The Washington Times. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/10/still-hostile-news-coverage- of-president-trump-is-/ 26 Noyes, R. (2018). Study: Economic Boom Largely Ignored as TV’s Trump Coverage Hits 92% Negative. Media Research Center Newsbusters. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich- noyes/2018/10/09/study-econ-boom-ignored-tv-trump-coverage-hits-92-percent-negative 27 Bloom, W. (1993). Personal Identity National Identity and International Relations. Cambridge University Press. 28 Papp, D. S. (1988). Contemporary International Relations: Framework for Understanding. Macmillan College. 29Frankel, J. (1970). Analytical Distinctions and Theories. In National Interest (pp. 31-41). Palgrave Macmillan UK 30 Ibid 31Morgenthau, H., & Nations, P. A. (1948). The struggle for power and peace. Nova York, Alfred Kopf 32 Morgenthau H, op. cit. 33 Rosenau, J. N. (1980). Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York: Nichols Publishing Company. 34 Atakora, A. B. (2017). The foreign policy of the United States of America in the Asia Pacific Region and its implications for Sino-American relations [Master of Arts degree in International Affairs]. Legon Centre for International Affairs and Diplomacy, University of Ghana. 35 Brice, M. (2019, June 10). Trump threatens more tariffs on Mexico over part of immigration deal. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-mexico-idUSKCN1TB182 36 Zimmer, O. (2003). Nationalism in Europe, 1890-1940. Macmillan International Higher Education. 37 Bartels, L. M. (2018). Partisanship in the Trump Era. The Journal of Politics, 80(4), 1483–1494. https://doi.org/10.1086/699337 38 Katzenstein, P. J. (2018). Trumpism is US. Berlin Social Science Centre. https://www.wzb.eu/en/news/trumpism-is-us 39 Villarreal, M. A. (2020). U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications. Congressional Research Service, 32. 40 Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. (2018). U.S.-Mexico security cooperation 2018-2024 (p. 29). Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. 41 Tuirán, R. (2000). Migración México-Estados Unidos. Presente y Futuro. Consejo Nacional de Población. 42 Velasco, J. (2018). The Future of U.S.-Mexico Relations: A Tale of Two Crises (p. 26). James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University. 43 Bown, C. P., & Irwin, D. A. (2019). Trump’s Assault on the Global Trading System. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2019-08-12/trumps-assault-global-trading-system 44 American Immigration Council. (2021, January 1). Immigrants in the United States. American Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigrants-in-the-united-states 45 Fernández, M. J. R. R. (2017). NAFTA´s impact on US-Mexican border security: Drug, trade and migration (Note d’analyse No. 9). Observatoire Politique de l’Amerique latine et des Caraibes. https://www.sciencespo.fr/opalc/sites/sciencespo.fr.opalc/files/NAFTA_0.pdf 46 Bruno, A. (2019). Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation (p. 20). Congressional Research Service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/R45995.pdf 47 Bown, C. P., & Irwin, D. A. (2019). Trump’s Assault on the Global Trading System. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2019-08-12/trumps-assault-global-trading-system University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 26 48 American Immigration Council. (2021, January 1). Immigrants in the United States. American Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigrants-in-the-united-states 49 Op. cit. see Villarreal, M. 50 Villarreal, M. A., & Fergusson, I. F. (2020). NAFTA and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Congressional Research Service. 51 American Immigration Council. (2019). The High Cost and Diminishing Returns of a Border Wall. American Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/cost-of-border-wall 52 Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. (2018). U.S.-Mexico security cooperation 2018-2024 (p. 29). Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. 53 Capps, R., Meissner, D., Soto, A. G. R., Bolter, J., & Pierce, S. (2019, August 2). From Control to Crisis: Changing Trends and Policies Reshaping U.S.-Mexico Border Enforcement. Migrationpolicy.Org. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/changing-trends-policies-reshaping-us-mexico-border- enforcement 54 Mosashvili, G. (2020). U.S.-Mexico Relations and Migration as an Impeding Factor: Trump’s Presidency (2016-2020) [Master’s thesis]. Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. 55 Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. (2018). U.S.-Mexico security cooperation 2018-2024 (p. 29). Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. 56 Capps, R., Meissner, D., Soto, A. G. R., Bolter, J., & Pierce, S. (2019, August 2). From Control to Crisis: Changing Trends and Policies Reshaping U.S.-Mexico Border Enforcement. Migrationpolicy.Org. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/changing-trends-policies-reshaping-us-mexico-border- enforcement 57 American Immigration Council. (2019). The High Cost and Diminishing Returns of a Border Wall. American Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/cost-of-border-wall 58 Op. cit. see Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. 59 Seelke, C. R., & Finklea, K. (2017). U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation: The Mérida Initiative and Beyond. Congressional Research Service. 60 Foladori, G., Miguel Moctezuma Flores, & Márquez, H. (2004). Vulnerabilidad epidemiológica en la migración México,Estados Unidos. https://core.ac.uk/display/35253253 61 Op. cit. see Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. 62 Velasco, J. (2018). The Future of U.S.-Mexico Relations: A Tale of Two Crises (p. 26). James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University. 63 Ibid. 64 Op. cit. see Velasco, J. p. 3. 65 Mosashvili, G. (2020). U.S.-Mexico Relations and Migration as an Impeding Factor: Trump’s Presidency (2016-2020) [Master’s thesis]. Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. 66 Ibid. 67 Restrepo, D., Werz, M., & Martinez, J. (2017). Preserving and Strengthening the U.S.-Mexico Relationship. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2017/01/30/297187/preserving-and- strengthening-the-u-s-mexico-relationship/ 68 Ibid. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 27 CHAPTER TWO STATUS OF U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS BEFORE TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND THE DOMESTIC CHANGES U.S. AND MEXICO HAVE FACED IN THE LAST TWO DECADES 2.1 Introduction This chapter seeks to assesses the status of the United States-Mexico bilateral relations before the presidency of Donald J. Trump, and to investigate the domestic changes Mexico and the United States have faced in the last two decades. The remaining portion of this chapter shall be divided into two main sections. Section 2.2 will address the first research question. Under Section 2.2, the status of the U.S.-Mexico relations under the previous three presidents – Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr., and Barack Obama – will be discussed. Section 2.3 will tackle the second research question. 2.2 Status of U.S.-Mexico Relations Before Trump Presidency For the longest time, the U.S.-Mexico relationship could not be described as being on a strong solid footing. All that changed with the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This deal was put together by the Clinton administration. This section tackles the first research question, “What was the status of the United States-Mexico bilateral relations before the presidency of Donald J. Trump? Before 2016, in the last 24 years, there have been three presidents – President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), President George Bush Jr. (2001-2009, and President Barack Obama (2009-2017). One commonality binding all these presidents together regardless of their political party affiliation is that all these presidents had been members of the Washington political establishment before their presidency – meaning they were ‘insiders’ and had been in government for quite some time before holding the Office of the President and so did have a good idea as to how Washington functions. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 28 President Bill Clinton was governor for the state of Arkansas for two non-consecutive terms. The first gubernatorial term was from 9th January 1979 to 19th January 1981, while the second gubernatorial term was from 11th January 1983 to 12th December 1992. Before that, he was the 50th Attorney General of Arkansas from 1977 to 1979. Bill Clinton also chaired the National Association of Governors from 1986-1987. Earlier, he vice-chaired the same association from 1985 to 1986. From this brief profile, it is safe to say Bill Clinton was already in politics before becoming a president. Meanwhile, President George Bush held the governorship position in the State of Texas as the 46th Governor from 17th of Jan., 1995 to 21st of Dec., 2000, implying he was the Governor of Texas during the Clinton Presidency. In the case of President Barack Obama, he had been a senator both at the state and federal levels representing his home state of Illinois. Obama’s state senatorial status was from 1997 to 2004, meaning he occupied that lawmaking position during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. From 2005 to 2008, President Barack Obama became a U.S. senator, thus, representing Illinois at the federal level. In contrast, President Donald Trump had zero political experience before winning the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections. It, therefore, stands to reason that the approach of Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico question would likely considerably differ from how the previous three presidents would handle it. In the next three sub-sections, an attempt shall be made to look at how the three former U.S. presidents handled U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations during their time in office in more detail. 2.2.1 U.S.-Mexico Relations under President Bill Clinton This sub-section examines the status of U.S.-Mexico relations under President Bill Clinton. President Bill Clinton may well be the U.S. president that has done more for Mexico than any University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 29 other U.S. president before him or after him in recent decades. First, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which was signed into law during his presidency has greatly benefitted Mexico’s economy in terms of trade. Second, President Bill Clinton came to the rescue of the Mexican Peso at a time of great financial crisis for the country. 2.2.1.1 Trade The North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement is a treaty between three North American countries, namely the United States, Mexico, and Canada. It is the first treaty of its kind to comprise two developed economies and a developing one; a fact which generated a lot of controversies.1 The agreement came into effect in 1994. Earlier, in 1992, the agreement (i.e., NAFTA) had been signed by President George Bush Sr. and was approved by Congress on 20th November 1993. However, it was President Bill Clinton that signed the NAFTA Implementation Act into law on 8th December 1993. His decision to do so brought immense benefits to the Mexican economy, with Mexico later on becoming United States’s #1 trade partner.2 This is evidenced by the increased trade deficit in favor of Mexico.3 The first time the free trade agreement was floated, some feared that under the NAFTA treaty, companies would move production from the United States to Mexico to reduce the cost of production, which it did. Mexico benefited hugely and so did the United States and Canada. Concerning trade between U.S and Mexico, it appears that the United States came out worse off, prompting calls for restructuring from the United States.4, 5 The NAFTA treaty sought to eliminate trade barriers and tariffs and create a single giant open and free market accessible by the three participating countries. The first part of the preamble of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement read as follows: “WHEREAS the Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America have University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 30 entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement having resolved to strengthen the special bonds of friendship and cooperation among their nations, contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade and provide a catalyst to broader international cooperation…”6 From the above preamble, the first and most essential objective of the NAFTA deal was to enhance bilateral relations between and among Mexico, Canada, and the United States. The United States sits between Canada and Mexico on the North American continent and so it is ‘hemmed in’. Thus, it is prudent strategically and security-wise to be on friendly terms with both its northern and southern neighbors; otherwise, should a hostile nation like China or Russia gain undue influence or a foothold in any of these two countries it could generate great troubles for the United States in the occasion that a war breaks out with these hostile nations. Then came President Trump, arguing for the renegotiation of NAFTA and even a possible dismantling and replacement of more than a two-decades-old treaty because he believed NAFTA had ‘robbed’ the United States of its auto industry and jobs. He achieved both; NAFTA was successfully renegotiated and replaced by the brand-new United States-Mexico- Canada Agreement (USMCA). “When I originally became your all-time favorite President, the Great State of Michigan was hemorrhaging car companies and jobs. Plants were closing and moving to Mexico, and other places. No new plants for decades. I stopped the moves, & now many plants are and have been built…” – Donald J. Trump’s Tweet On July 8th, 2020 (Source: thetrumparchive.com) 2.2.1.2 Mexican Economy The year 1994 is one that Mexico would not forget in a hurry. In that year, Mexico was brought to its ‘knees’ economically. In that year, two key political figures were assassinated. ‘All hell broke loose.’ The people of Mexico would not stand for it. They rose en masse in an uprising against the Mexican federal government. This uprising began in the state of Chiapas, the 8th University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 31 largest state in Mexico. Chiapas is home to the ancient Mayan ruins of Yaxchilán, Palenque, Chinkultic, Toniná and Bonampak.7 The Mayans were an aggressive and militaristic tribe. This same state is also home to the largest native population in Mexico comprised of 12 nationally recognized ethnic groups. By native, these ethnic groups were the original settlers in that space of land now called Mexico before the Spanish came. This further implies that citizens of the State of Chiapas were most likely a minority group. During the 1990s, more than 60% of the people of Mexico residing in Chiapas lacked sewage service, only a little above 30% had electric power, and 50% of the residents lacked potable water. More than half of the available schools at the time provided education but only to the third grade and many of the pupils dropped out even before they finished first grade. In short, living conditions and prospects for the people of Chiapas was grim. The people felt neglected. They ‘simmered’ in silence – their anger was bottled in waiting for an opportune time. Before long, a man known only as Subcomandante Marcos came along willing to take up the people’s grievances. On the 1st of January, 1994 – an auspicious day – the very day the NAFTA treaty was put into motion – Marcos with his small leftist guerilla band called Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN) took over and occupied 7 towns in Chiapas.8 They went further to lay siege to a military base, taking weapons and breaking out several prisoners from the jail cells. Earlier, protests had already been launched in the state to protest neoliberal economic policies, most especially the NAFTA deal. Political instability triggered by the assassinations coupled with the Zapatista uprising and sustained uncertainty in the economy created the ‘perfect storm’ for capital flight from within the borders of Mexico. Virtually every foreign investor was pulling out. It was a desperate time. The Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo had to act fast. In December of 1994, the Mexican University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 32 government thought it expedient to devalue the Mexican Peso (i.e., the Mexican currency). This made matters worse. Anxiety and panic among foreign investor had now reached a fever pitch. The result? More foreign investment capital left the borders of Mexico – a situation that threatened the ability of the Mexican government to honor its debt obligations. As all this chaos and uprising was unfolding in Mexico, Clinton had had his ‘ears to the ground’. To some extent, he may have felt partially or indirectly responsible for what was happening in Mexico because of the NAFTA treaty. He requested that the United States Congress proffer some assistance to Mexico, but it dragged its feet. Delay could be catastrophic. President Bill Clinton had to make a move. He had to act fast. Eventually, President Bill Clinton decided to go ‘solo’ on his rescue mission of the Mexican economy, without Congressional involvement because of their inaction. This singular decision was perhaps one of the most defining events of his presidency as far as U.S.-Mexico relations were concerned. The Clinton Administration through an audacious and just-in-time initiative was able to avert the collapse of the Mexican economy in 1995.9, 10 Using his executive authority, he provided the Mexican government with billions of dollars in loan guarantees with funding from the International Monetary Fund.11 Had President Clinton not taken the initiative when he did, the Mexican economy would have collapsed and resulted in untold hardship for the citizens of U.S.’ southern neighbor. Furthermore, such an incident could have led to a severe refugee crisis for the U.S., not to mention the attendant national security implications. Some two years later, this is what President Bill Clinton had to say about NAFTA and his intervention in the Mexico economic crisis: University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 33 “But I personally believe that our relationships and our individual economies are stronger because we passed NAFTA than they would have been if we hadn't passed NAFTA. And I think there is enough recent history-- you just go back over the last 25 years and look at what's happened in times of economic difficulty either in Mexico or the United States, and you look at all kinds of other issues--we are cooperating across a wider range of issues than ever before; we have a more integrated economic partnership than ever before; we are working on more labor and environmental issues than ever before… So my view is that we did the right thing to pass NAFTA and that both the United States and Mexico are in better shape today than they would be if we hadn't done it…It I think, is clear support for the decision that I made a couple of years ago to enter a partnership with Mexico when it was in difficulty, because I felt very strongly that the potential of the Mexican economy and the Mexican people was very great, and that President Zedillo was pursuing the proper course.” • President Bill Clinton, 1997 12 Judging from Clinton’s remarks, the NAFTA treaty was mutually beneficial to all the participating countries – the United States, Mexico, and Canada as well. Even amid that success, many people in the United States were being slowly and surely left behind. This may have not been immediately apparent. The NAFTA treaty brought about some major structural changes in the U.S. economy. New jobs were created, many jobs were lost as well. That development would in some decades later lead to the rise of a populist leader, in the person of President Donald J. Trump – the U.S. political establishment’s worst nightmare. A man loathed by his political enemies (i.e., the Democrat Party and the liberal Media) and tolerated by his own party (i.e., Republican Party) bigwigs; and yet loved by the masses. 2.2.1.3 Drugs and Immigration For some strange reason, drug trafficking and immigration are two inextricably linked issues that can always be seen to mark U.S.-Mexico relations, regardless of which political party is in power. One journalist of USA Today described the battles to stop drug smuggling from Mexico to the United States as an “endless” one.13 As, thus, expected, the drug issue came up as well during the Clinton years. In an exchange with the press before a meeting with Mexico’s president, Zedillo, Clinton was asked a question to the effect as to how he was going to University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 34 convince the United States Congress that the U.S. is a major consumer of drugs and that most narcotraffickers are inside the United States, while also convincing “people that only see Mexico as the bad guys.” 14 President Bill Clinton responded as follows: “I think that Congress has targeted a number of other countries in a more focused way where the problem is not primarily the transit of drugs but is the production of drugs, so I wouldn't agree with that. I do believe that as least for our administration, we have been very clear that the reduction of demand and dealing with the infrastructure of drugs in the United States has to be a key part of our strategy, and we intend to implement that. I think the real issue, what we should be focusing on is how we can work together in our mutual interest because drugs present a threat both to the United States and to Mexico. My objective in working with Congress is to try to get a united American position without regard to party, where we should have partnerships with all of the countries that are also beset by this problem in one way or the other, and we should work together on all aspects of it. That's what I believe we should do 15. From the response above, some deductions can be made: (1) “...the problem is not primarily the transit of drugs, but is the production of drugs” – by this statement, Clinton appears to suggest that Mexico is not the primary cause of the drug problem in the United States since drug traffickers only use Mexico as transit and that Mexico in itself may not be the major producer of the narcotics that find its way into the United States -; (2) In other words, President Clinton does not see Mexico as a perpetrator of the drug problem in the United States but rather a victim as adduced in the statement, “…because drugs present a threat both to the United States and to Mexico”. The Clinton approach to the drug problem in the U.S.-Mexico relations seems very different from that of the Trump administration which saw Mexico as an enabler of the drug problem in the United States; (3) “…we have been very clear that the reduction of demand and dealing with the infrastructure of drugs in the United States has to be a key part of our strategy” – from this statement, the Clinton administration hoped to make the reduction of the drug demand in the U.S. and its associated infrastructure the centerpiece of its strategy against the war on drugs; (4) “My objective in working with Congress is to try to get a united University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 35 American position without regard to party, where we should have partnerships with all of the countries that are also beset by this problem in one way or the other…” – the first part of this statement seem to imply that there was division in the U.S. Congress along party lines as to how best to tackle the drug problem facing the U.S.; (5) “My objective in working with Congress is to try to get a united American position without regard to party, where we should have partnerships with all of the countries that are also beset by this problem in one way or the other…” – the second part of this statement connotes three things: firstly, the Clinton administration held the belief that no country was an enabler of the drug problem, secondly, all countries beset by the drug problem were all victims and not perpetrators, and thirdly, hope of solving the drug problem can only be done via partnerships with these other countries that are also ‘beset by this problem’. In short, these deductions formed the basis of Clinton’s narcotics strategy in its U.S.-Mexico relations. 2.2.2 U.S.-Mexico Relation under President George H.W. Bush Jnr. This sub-section examines the status of U.S.-Mexico relations under President George H.W. Bush Jnr. To tackle the object of this sub-section, Gutiérrez16 shall be heavily drawn upon. ,2.2.2.1 Immigration and Border Security Soon after his inauguration in the Office of the President of the United States, George W. Bush made it known to the public that his first overseas trip will be to their southern neighbor, Mexico. The trip intended to meet with President Vicente Fox, a man who had recently defied the odds to become Mexico’s President. Vicente Fox of the conservative Alliance for Change coalition was sworn into the Office of the President for Mexico in 2000, a year before Bush was sworn in. In Mexico, a presidential term lasts 6 years. Among other things, Vicente had promised to ensure the promotion of free-market policies, provide support for rule of law and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 36 democracy, launch an anti-corruption and anti-crime agenda, and resolve the political impasse and the instability in the state of Chiapas. Notably, Vicente Fox’s inaugural ceremony brought to a close more than 7 decades of presidential rule by Mexico’s long-dominant political party Notably, Vicente Fox’s inaugural ceremony brought to a close more than 7 decades of presidential rule by Mexico’s long-dominant political party.17 George bush’s trip to Mexico was in fulfilment of his campaign promise to build a “special relationship” with Mexico, like that which the United States has with the United Kingdom. That campaign promise was crucial to his winning Latino votes in New Mexico, Texas, California, New York, and Arizona. However, cardinal to this relationship was the contentious issue of immigration, the passage of legal and illegal workers alike from Mexico into the U.S., and more critically their handling and fate in the United States. For 7 years, the Bush presidency strived to fulfil its campaign promise to put together legislation that would ensure the unrestricted flow of cheap Mexican labor into the U.S. and to safeguard it via pathways to becoming an American citizen. The resistance to the legislation was huge, especially from within his party, the Republican Party. In June of 2007, the U.S. Senate failed to gather the 60 filibuster votes needed to end the debate on the proposed legislation, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. As publicized, Bush did visit Vicente’s ranch in Monterrey, Mexico in the early part of February of 2001. During their photo op before the press, the two men highlighted how they have in common a rural agrarian culture, and their deep mutual respect. As an offshoot of the public show of this friendship that was developing between the two presidents, Bush signaled his resolve to tackle the urgent cross-border issues of illicit drug trafficking, border industrialization, environmental degradation, and immigration. Whilst a candidate, Bush had pledged a guest-worker initiative that will permit a greater number of Mexicans to access work University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 37 visas to come work in the U.S.18 Not only that, but the initiative also as intimated earlier above, would have paved the way for permanent legal residency and ultimate citizenship for the almost 3 million Mexicans then illegally holding jobs in the United States. Winding up their first state visit, both presidents promised to nurture their special relationship and to organize a conference in the U.S. later in the year to continue to tackle immigration and bilateral matters. The second conference failed to move the ‘needle’ on the issues that had been raised in the first.19 Following the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. in 2001, everything changed. Everything else was relegated to the background, including U.S.-Mexico relations but not border security. Border security, thus, became a primary focus of U.S.-Mexico relations in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Mexican nationals living in the United States were mistreated in the name of counterterrorism.20 The 9/11 incident dramatically altered the U.S.- Mexico border and migration policy stance. Before 9/11, public discourse in the U.S. centred on public safety and the importance of educating migrants about the likely dangers associated with border crossings, plus continuing concerns over human and drug trafficking. Now, all that changed. The rhetoric became all about national security, and efforts to control the movement of Mexican migrants across the border.21 In furtherance to the preceding, in 2005, Bush implored Congress to make available more funds for border security and committed to releasing 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. 2.2.2.2 Trade Under President’s Bush’s administration, NAFTA institutions continued to function. Under NAFTA, trade between the two nations had tripled. Instances, where there had been issues and allegations of a party violating labor and environmental stipulations of the NAFTA deal, have been looked at. No attempt was made by the Bush administration to dismantle the NAFTA University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 38 deal. On the contrary, the Bush presidency contended for the merits of NAFTA making the case that the treaty has yielded modest positive gains to the economies of the three participating countries.22 However, farmers in Mexico have railed on the effects of NAFTA. The U.S.- Mexico trade dispute during Bush’s presidency involved telecommunication, trucking, sugar, sweeteners, and tuna. 2.2.2.3 Drug Trafficking During the presidency of George Bush, there was an unprecedented level of cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico in counter-narcotics. Mexico under President Fox went all out against major drug traffickers. These efforts the Bush presidency officials regularly praised. In April 2004, the State Department, however, indicated that opium poppy and marijuana cultivation grew considerably in Mexico in 2003. In 2004, the Drug Enforcement Administration officials indicated that they had disassembled a major Mexican drug trafficking and money laundering organization based in the U.S. This was achieved through Operation Money Clip.23 In sum, Bush’s foreign policy style appears to leverage more on his close personal relationship with the leaders of the countries he was dealing with. A case in point is his close personal relationship with Tony Blair of the United Kingdom. In relating with Mexico, therefore, President Bush appeared to rely upon his close personal relationships with Mexican President Vicente Fox. Consider the excerpt by Gutiérrez24: “Indeed, when Bush was asked about his foreign policy credentials during one of the nationally televised presidential debates, he responded that he knew Vicente Fox, the President-elect of Mexico very well: “He’s a man I know from Mexico.’’.” University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 39 2.2.3 U.S.-Mexico Relation under President Barack Obama 2.2.3.1 Trade In 2008, when Obama won the presidency, Painter, a BBC Latin America correspondent wrote that Washington analysts do not expect any major changes or projects, but just a change in tone from the incoming Obama presidency. That was the consensus among the experts on Obama’s likely foreign policies towards Mexico and other countries in Latin America. It was expected that Barack’s approach would be more of getting things done through multilateral organizations. However, in March 2009, President Obama put on hold a pilot program, which George Bush had brought into being in 2008 to pave the way for a broader, more comprehensive U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking initiative.25 This suspension was the beginning of Obama’s first trade war and with Mexico for that matter.26 The program was intended to make it possible for a restricted number of trucking firms based in Mexico to function within allocated United States zones. Critics of the initiative held the view that the program was ‘hemorrhaging’ U.S. trucking jobs. 2.2.3.2 Drug Trafficking In framing America’s drug problem, President Obama is on record to have said that the strong demand in the U.S. for illegal drugs is a primary contributory factor to the United States’ narcotics problem in the U.S.27 This statement mirrors how President Clinton also framed drug trafficking in the U.S during his time in office as president. For a long time, policies against drug trafficking have not yielded the desired results. The failure is largely acknowledged, even as the war on drugs continue to be based on a mano dura (“Iron Fist”, or “Firm Hand”) approach. President Obama’s election overlapped with this University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 40 “Ironfisted” approach. President Felipe Calderón’s of Mexico had taken a strong stance against the Mexican drug cartels by deploying the military against them. The Obama administration was also bequeathed the Merida Initiative – a project that advances massive support from the U.S. to Mexican and Central American military and law enforcement bodies. Judicial officials were not left out of the support. The purpose of the support from the Merida Initiative was to help law enforcement bodies in Latin America control the production of narcotics, trafficking, and organized crime. The Merida Initiative was a legacy of the Bush Administration and a possible outgrowth of the close personal relationship with the then President Vicente Fox of Mexico. In 2008, the U.S. Congress advanced USD400 million to Mexico and a further USD65 million to some countries in Central America to aid in the war efforts against drug trafficking, its production and organize crime. Obama did not cancel these initiatives but rather supported them. In his first year in office, Obama made available another USD300 million to the program. In 2009, President Calderón deployed 5,000 soldiers into Ciudad Juarez, a Mexican city on the United States border. The city, and northern Chihuahua as a whole, had been a battleground for competing drug cartels. The move produced some limited results against the drug cartels, however, the collateral damage was huge – thousands of civilians died in the process.28 The election of Enrique Peña Nieto in 2012 heralded a change in Mexican policies, a de-escalation of military operations against the drug cartels. 2.2.3.3 Immigration and Border Security Once every 12 years, Mexico and United States presidential election cycles overlap, producing a unique opening to examine the changing context of U.S.-Mexico